• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

Here is the same lawyer mentioned in the OP being interviewed by O'Reilly.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNOYzYNoOw0"]YouTube- Bill O'Reilly Interviews Suspect Terrorist Attorney Scott Fenstermaker[/ame]
 
This is a joke right? Okay its a joke.

Are you claiming that if more pictures of ABU Graibe hit the internet it wouldn't recruit more Islamic terrorists?

No, they are available to everyone who wants them. You cannot "add" more abu-ghraib to the internet and a greater occurrence of abu ghraib photos on the internet isnt likely to sway anyone more than it already has.

First you tried to claim preaching hate isn't something to fear and now you are claiming that preaching more hate wont matter.

Mohammad Cartoon Sparked riots which killed people

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Muslim cartoon fury claims lives

So the terrorists are going to draw cartoons making fun of muslims and they're going to rile up a bunch of muslims with it who are going to make an angry mob and start killing people?


And now they're going to violate the koran in front of everyone and make muslims into dangerous people?

You fall into more intellectual traps than Britney Spears in a CNN interview,

Considering you're setting your own traps upon yourself and might realize you are in fact becoming the rodent in your avatar I suggest you change it before you make the connection and go into a psychosis.
 
My God you cannot be this ignorant.

Are you claiming that if more pictures of ABU Graibe hit the internet it wouldn't recruit more Islamic terrorists?

If that were true then why did your Messiah refuse to allow the Communist Anti Christian League or ACLU to get its hands on the pictures?

First you tried to claim preaching hate isn't something to fear and now you are claiming that preaching more hate wont matter.

Mohammad Cartoon Sparked riots which killed people

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Muslim cartoon fury claims lives

False claim of mistreatment of the Qur'an in Afghanistan killed more people

15 dead in Afghanistan riots - false report of Koran flushing triggers mass hysteria in Muslim world: Stop Apologising to Islam - Why is US government probing a false report ? - Militant Islam Monitor - Militant Islam Monitor

Try opening up a newspaper or reading a few articles once in a while and stay away from Doonesbury.

You fall into more intellectual traps than Britney Spears in a CNN interview.

Nicely insulting, but it's still you cowering in fear. Terrorists do not scare me. Ideas and words do not scare me. You cannot show any proof that trying a terrorist makes a terror attack more likely, nor have you. Try being less insulting and think a bit more.
 
The terrorists already claimed they were responsible and wanted to die but now they are going to pleade not guilty just to have the platform to rail against the US.

If Holder has already gaurenteed the conviction, which he did, why even have the trial.

The world will just say it was fixed anyway so the US will look even worse.

I don't think anything that these terrorists want should be given to them.

Since the trial will go on and it will be broadcast on every channel in the country we will just have to wait and see what happens.
 
I guess you question their universality then.

The Constitution is not an international treaty sport.

Yes I hate america. Good one, ho five you totally got me.

It's clear from your statements that you believe that this should be a trial of the U.S. and not the terrorists who murdered 3,000 U.S. civilians.

I giess this is a comedy thread now.

Provide evidence of a systematic genocide perpetrated by the U.S..

Afghanistan did that too?

Yes the Islamic conquerors who now rule Afghanistan perpetrated massive genocide and forced population transfers on the indigenous peoples of the Indian subcontinent. In fact prior to Stalin and Hitler this was the largest genocide in history.

Murder of millions of civilians? Vietnam,

In Vietnam the U.S. was in a legitimate military conflict against communist aggression.

hundreds of thousands in Iraq due to the war...

The U.S. doesn't target civilians.


Was a legitimate military target and there were no civilians present as at that time Germany was engaged in total war.

Tokyo Firebombing?

Was a legitimate military target and there were no civilians present as at that time Japan was engaged in total war.

Wars started based on lies? Vietnam, Iraq. But don't tell me, not according to your view of history. Im sure Tonkin Gulf and WMDs never happened.

A) There was at least one attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Gulf of Tonkin was only a precursor to escalation in a war which had already begun and which had been started by the communists.

B) All 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community as well as numerous foreign intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD, a lie implies intent to deceive. And; furthermore, Iraq had been collaborating with Islamist terrorists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad and had perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S..

Im talking about intangible ethereal concepts such as 'freedom', 'liberty' democracy when it suits you etc.

Trials by military tribunal are not antithetical to those concepts. But ya I suppose in your assbackwards worldview unlawful alien combatants have an unalienable right to a platform to justify the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians.


Are you pretending not to know anything or do you actually not know anything?

And I said all hateful liberal stuff about genocides etc. that to fulfill a liberal stereotype.

Once again why do you believe that these people have a right to a platform from which to launch anti-American propaganda, and justify the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians?
 
Nicely insulting,

Pot meet kettle

but it's still you cowering in fear.

I'm the one backing up my claims with real facts and links to them. You've provided nothing but theory.

Terrorists do not scare me.

Some people are brave, others are just too stupid to be afraid.
Philip R. Breeze

Ideas and words do not scare me. You cannot show any proof that trying a terrorist makes a terror attack more likely, nor have you. Try being less insulting and think a bit more.

Not only have I given examples of attacks based on the teaching of hate but specific examples of single incidents that have sparked hate in others where people have died.

You have provided nothing. Zip, zero nada to support your claim.

And instead of being brave enough to challenge my examples, you ignore them then lie and claim that I have provided nothing.
 
Last edited:
Pot meet kettle



I'm the one backing up my claims with real facts and links to them. You've provided nothing but theory.



Some people are brave, others are just too stupid to be afraid.
Philip R. Breeze



Not only have I given examples of attacks based on the teaching of hate but specific examples of single incidents that have sparked hate in others where people have died.

You have provided nothing. Zip, zero nada to support your claim.

And instead of being brave enough to challenge my examples, you ignore them then lie and claim that I have provided nothing.

Your proof is would be like me linking to youtube and saying it proves I am right. The problem is not your sources, but that what you think they prove is not what they prove. You have shown no evidence that giving this guy a trial is going to let him reach any one who would not already be reached by terrorists, nor that it is in any way likely that any one who does read what he has to say will actually attack Americans over it.

You seem to think that since people who commit terrorist acts communicate with terrorists, that means that communicating with terrorists is the root cause. You make assumptions as to where they get their motivation, and press that assumption as fact, and look for facts to fit that assumption. I prefer to look at facts, and try and draw conclusions based on those facts. I see that we have safely tried terrorists, I see that anything this guy is likely to say is already out there, and I therefore believe that trying this guy is not going to make us less secure.
 
I still think there is no harm in it. They can air their views, and we can laugh at and condemn them. Words are harmless.

No, men live and die on "words".
No, as well, to these suspected murderers, on their proposed airing to what amounts to hatred.
This we do not need.
If they had done the same to Russia or India or China, do you even think they would still be alive - now ??
We must STOP bending over backward to these Islamic extremeists...
Years ago, they should have been release to the wilds of Afghanistan and then hunted down and shot like the worthless animals they are.
And I do not mean to abase animals so....
 
No, men live and die on "words".
No, as well, to these suspected murderers, on their proposed airing to what amounts to hatred.
This we do not need.
If they had done the same to Russia or India or China, do you even think they would still be alive - now ??
We must STOP bending over backward to these Islamic extremeists...
Years ago, they should have been release to the wilds of Afghanistan and then hunted down and shot like the worthless animals they are.
And I do not mean to abase animals so....

Trying, convicting, and executing is not "bending over backwards" for them. Nor do I think we should base our actions on what another country would do.
 
Trying, convicting, and executing is not "bending over backwards" for them. True Nor do I think we should base our actions on what another country would do.Our nation has much to learn, and we should at least listen to the Indians and Chinese, particularly to the Indians as they are so close to the Islamics.
Allowing the Islamic infamous four to express their hatred in the NYC court is bending, as well allowing that homicidal major to even be in our Army..
Oftentimes, I believe the FBI is useless and should be disbanded.They claim "underfunding", which may well be...
 
There are at least 3 posts in this very thread explaining it to you.

Its giving terrorists a platform to lie true and recruit new membersfalse.

Now answer my question.

Explain how civilian court is better than military court for these guys and explain how we are safer by doing it.
We are only safer by eliminating the cause of terrorism - ignorance..

This varies, of course, but what most men say is 10% lies, 10% the truth, and 80% opinion.
I favor the civilian court over the military... this "war on terrorism" is very much a political thing.

The Islamics had their chance (maybe**) to opine years ago, instead chose to murder.. Its very debatable if they should be allowed to express themselves now.
**maybe, as no one would have listened to their hatred then, or now. As difficult as it would have been, we should have listened.
 
I for one am interested in what they have to say about U.S. foreign policy, and see if it aligns with any of my own thoughts about it.

Are you afraid that they might speak the truth?
 
yeah, that's it

we're afraid the jihadists might speak the truth

LOL!
 
Read your history. They had a lot more than words. Why are you conservatives so afraid of words? I just do not understand that.
The words of hatred are very much a part of things.
Another term for this is propaghanda....and its too close to todays "advertising".
They must be balanced by words of love..or the truth..
This never happened in Russia, Cambodia, nor Germany.
And it could happen in our nation.:(
 
I for one am interested in what they have to say about U.S. foreign policy, and see if it aligns with any of my own thoughts about it.

Are you afraid that they might speak the truth?
Since when has man started to speak "the truth" ?
The truth, the whole truth, and only the truth.
I do not believe this can be done.
I do fear that we have many ignorant in places and that they will believe..
 
I happen to think this is the perfect plan for actually drawing out the potential terrorists in our mist. Just imagine the things we will learn from those who are protesting in front of this courthouse every day, it could be worth the dog and pony show.
 
I happen to think this is the perfect plan for actually drawing out the potential terrorists in our mist. Just imagine the things we will learn from those who are protesting in front of this courthouse every day, it could be worth the dog and pony show.

Hmmm...if we can lure enough radicals out, we can firebomb them on a budget in the streets and save ourselves some time.
 
What they say will probably sound pretty familiar. We hear it from Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Obama, etc, all the time.
 
We are only safer by eliminating the cause of terrorism - ignorance..

Thats a great slogan but it doesn't come close to being an actionable plan.

This varies, of course, but what most men say is 10% lies, 10% the truth, and 80% opinion.
I favor the civilian court over the military... this "war on terrorism" is very much a political thing.

Claiming that they wont use it to recruit new members makes no sense at all. And you think the civilian court isn't political? Explain how the civilian court is better. Go ahead. And actually address the negatives I listed about the civilian court as well as the risk.

The Islamics had their chance (maybe**) to opine years ago, instead chose to murder.. Its very debatable if they should be allowed to express themselves now.
**maybe, as no one would have listened to their hatred then, or now. As difficult as it would have been, we should have listened.


There is no debate.

Its far riskier in security and far more in cost and the risk of them using this to recruit others which is absolutely a real threat.

Read up on how Abu Graib pictures were used to recruit more and tell me this show trial wouldn't do the exact same thing.
 
I for one am interested in what they have to say about U.S. foreign policy, and see if it aligns with any of my own thoughts about it.

Are you afraid that they might speak the truth?

Oh yes. That is what we're afraid of. We ceratinly know they wouldn't lie about their treatment or reasoning to gain headlines and increase their numbers. :roll::roll:

We'll call you guys when we need more beer mmmkay?
 
Are you afraid that they might speak the truth?

The truth? You mean the real reason why they attacked us that has nothing to do with our foreign policy but rather with the Islamist foreign policy of bringing the entire world of dar al-Harb into the fold of dar al-Islam through offensive jihad?
 
The Constitution is not an international treaty sport.



It's clear from your statements that you believe that this should be a trial of the U.S. and not the terrorists who murdered 3,000 U.S. civilians.

Come on...



Provide evidence of a systematic genocide perpetrated by the U.S..

Whats so special about systematic?

Yes the Islamic conquerors who now rule Afghanistan perpetrated massive genocide and forced population transfers on the indigenous peoples of the Indian subcontinent. In fact prior to Stalin and Hitler this was the largest genocide in history.



In Vietnam the U.S. was in a legitimate military conflict against communist aggression.

Started through illegal means, Tonkin Gulf wiki it...

The U.S. doesn't target civilians.

Only it has on many many many occasions, not recently, it conducts its war in a much more politically intelligent manner nowadays.

Was a legitimate military target and there were no civilians present as at that time Germany was engaged in total war.

Wait I thought we didnt commit genocide... so the 'civilians' were actually military targets because of a magical term you call 'total war' which has no place in reality took effect?

Was a legitimate military target and there were no civilians present as at that time Japan was engaged in total war.

Except a few hundred thousand civilians died. :

A) There was at least one attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Gulf of Tonkin was only a precursor to escalation in a war which had already begun and which had been started by the communists.

B) All 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community as well as numerous foreign intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD, a lie implies intent to deceive. And; furthermore, Iraq had been collaborating with Islamist terrorists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad and had perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S..

Thats nice selective false information for you
Trials by military tribunal are not antithetical to those concepts. But ya I suppose in your assbackwards worldview unlawful alien combatants have an unalienable right to a platform to justify the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians.




Once again why do you believe that these people have a right to a platform from which to launch anti-American propaganda, and justify the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians?


I'm assbackwards? You're the american I presume.

Most people would look at your post then put a finger to their head and start making a circle.:doh
 
Oh yes. That is what we're afraid of. We ceratinly know they wouldn't lie about their treatment or reasoning to gain headlines and increase their numbers. :roll::roll:

We'll call you guys when we need more beer mmmkay?

How does their being terrorists alter their integrity more so or less so than any other man.

They're probably very righteous people.

But I must be a naive lib I'm sure they would lie. They'd probably say the US set up a torture camp or something.
 
How does their being terrorists alter their integrity more so or less so than any other man.

Because it doesn't make the increbille mistake of comparing them to common criminals.

They're probably very righteous people.

Its called Islamic fundamentalists.

But I must be a naive lib I'm sure they would lie. They'd probably say the US set up a torture camp or something.

And yet you support giving them that platform.
 
Back
Top Bottom